DVDizzy Forum

Ariel: "I never had a... what's that word again? T-shirt..." and starts singing Part of Your World. The rest yell at her to stop it. Jasmine mentions she is allergic to cats and has asthma (she uses an inhaler) and Snow White that she needs glasses as she's short-sighted (and start making poses from her movie when she was running in the woods). Tiana's hairstyle in the scene changes to more modern afro.

Good Lord...

btw was anyone around the webz for the absolute shitstorm when Stitch made fun of the Renaissance era Princess films(& Lion King) for its teaser promos? Cuz this is basically that all over again, lol.

unprincess wrote:btw was anyone around the webz for the absolute shitstorm when Stitch made fun of the Renaissance era Princess films(& Lion King) for its teaser promos? Cuz this is basically that all over again, lol.

I don't remember that, but according to the documentary on the 2-Disc Edition of Lilo & Stitch, the teasers were still big hits and very popular.

unprincess wrote:btw was anyone around the webz for the absolute shitstorm when Stitch made fun of the Renaissance era Princess films(& Lion King) for its teaser promos? Cuz this is basically that all over again, lol.

I was one of those complaining back then -- I just hated what they did to Jasmine in the Aladdin one. The other three were actually amusing and the concept itself was fun. Looking back on it, that was a pure stroke of genius from a marketing standpoint. It reminded people of Disney's past hits by gently mocking them, it conveyed the message that this was not the Disney movie or a Disney protagonist you were used to, but the actual movie was actually pure heart and pure Disney. Not to mention, the stuff it makes fun of wasn't in the actual film, it was limited only to those "Inter-Stitch-ials". It also featured new hand-drawn animation seamlessly integrated with the original one.

Now compare that to the WIR2 trailer -- this princess stuff is actually in the movie (and in fact, they may be adding more of it), the princesses themselves are tired jokes and stereotypes that the internet itself has already chewed out years before (Aurora constantly falls asleep, ha-ha; Belle is ALWAYS seen reading a book; Pocahontas' hair is out of this world), and they look nothing like themselves. The first movie was already visually unimaginative (a movie about video games, some of them 8-bit, some RPG, could have played more with the concept and employed a mix of visual styles, or even used live-action for the arcade sequences), so I had no expectations that the sequel would try something new artistically and tonally. It seems it only exists as a corporate promotion and to show how cool Disney is for taking jabs at themselves.

It kind of appears they're trying to do what Mattel did to Barbie with Life in the Dreamhouse -- the only difference being that LitD is actually funny, and Barbie lends herself to the concept more easily: she was pretty much a blank slate before so the comedic tone doesn't feel like personality transplant, and alternatively, you can view the show as one of Barbie's acting gigs.

Anyway, I just see the scene as pointless and not really innovative, as I've already seen more creative Disney Princess reimaginings, as well as funnier Disney Princess parodies online, each done with more care for the characters. But this coming from Disney, it doesn't really feel like a celebration of the characters, but rather insincere, exploitative and manipulative.

In any case, complaining won't do much, but I guess it's nice to vent for a bit. We all know we're all going to pay and see this movie.

At least the Stitch ads were only via trailers, they weren't in the actual movie. And didn't Stitch become like the "unofficial crossover" for Disney with it's TV series

JeanGreyForever wrote:In general, fantasy stories with young people and children are easier to write with the parents out of the way because that's a natural shield from danger that has been removed.

Good point. That must be a reason why many Disney protagonists don't have parents or only have one of them.

Regarding Prince Philip, it's curious, but I hadn't realized he could be motherless until you mentioned it in your previous post. Now I see it's the most logical thing to think. The same with Cinderella's prince. Though there, apart from her mother's absence, the paintings on the palace walls where only he and his father appear are a clue she could have died (and quite early). And what about Eric in The Little Mermaid? He doesn't seem to have parents, but if they were dead, wouldn't he be the king instead of a prince? I know there are also territories (like Monaco) that are ruled by a prince, but they're called principalities and there they mention it's a kingdom.

Mooky wrote:But this coming from Disney, it doesn't really feel like a celebration of the characters, but rather insincere, exploitative and manipulative.

I completely agree.

As for the Lilo & Stitch promos, I remember I didn't like that the princesses acted out of character there, but yes, it was easier to accept given that it wasn't part of the movie. And I agree that they were clever from a marketing standpoint.

Mooky wrote:In any case, complaining won't do much, but I guess it's nice to vent for a bit. We all know we're all going to pay and see this movie.

Yeah. The Princesses scene in the last trailer made me want to boycott the movie at first, but I know I will end up seeing it in the theater. It's useless to resist.

unprincess wrote:btw was anyone around the webz for the absolute shitstorm when Stitch made fun of the Renaissance era Princess films(& Lion King) for its teaser promos? Cuz this is basically that all over again, lol.

As has been pointed out, those were just for trailers. Not to mention I think fans ate those up because we got to see some new hand drawn animation. Sure it added salt to the wound of not getting hand drawn movies anymore, but this was also our first glimpse at some of these movies HD transfers. Interestingly the beauty and the beast trailer had the proper darker color pallet. Also, acting out of character was part of the charm imo, seeing them drop the facade of what was expected in the moment as if this alien was ruining their big moment.

I was more annoyed at first because the movie didn't turn out to be multimovie cross over as was implied by those trailers. I say at first because the movie turned out great without those types of gimmicks.

I'd like to add a point to this.

Why is the audience so against the idea of romance? Recent princess movies, like Moana and Brave made it a point to have the Princess character not falling in love, and finding a man, leading to the classic happy ending. Although I do enjoy these movies, I don't see why falling in love would be an issue. That's what's so charming about Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. I think that during the '30s, '40s and '50s, the idea of love at first sight was much more credible than it is today, and somehow, I think the world was much more innocent back then.

disneyprincess11 wrote:All I can say about the Princesses yelling no is that it isn't in a mean way. It was like NO! PLEASE! And the princesses are not actually mean to Merida.

The all others are true. Except they must have just added Moana asking Vanellope if she wants to come because when I saw it, she was like "Cool to meet you."

I highly suggest people to lighten up. It's just satire and personally, there's nothing wrong with Disney making fun of themselves. They're aware of the criticism that the princesses have, so Disney & the voice actresses, especially Jodi (the song was improvised herself!), are clearly having fun with it.

The only thing that I close to not liking is how Cinderella and Aurora tease CP30. I keep on having back and forth reactions to that. I know they're teasing him, but I really hope the girls aren't snooty to the other characters. Especially Aurora since she's my favorite.

Of course, I should stop defending this scene because most of you guys won't like this scene anyway.

Cinderella and Aurora made fun of CP30? What did they say haha.

Jay wrote:Cinderella and Aurora made fun of CP30? What did they say haha.

They actually tease him name, calling him K-2SO (I think??) and R-2T2 And after he leaves, Aurora says That never gets old and she fist pumps pixie dust with Cinderella. Again nothing too serious

disneyprincess11 wrote:

Jay wrote:Cinderella and Aurora made fun of CP30? What did they say haha.

They actually tease him name, calling him K-2SO (I think??) and R-2T2 And after he leaves, Aurora says That never gets old and she fist pumps pixie dust with Cinderella. Again nothing too serious

Lol that actually sounds funny.

D82 wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote:In general, fantasy stories with young people and children are easier to write with the parents out of the way because that's a natural shield from danger that has been removed.

Good point. That must be a reason why many Disney protagonists don't have parents or only have one of them.

Regarding Prince Philip, it's curious, but I hadn't realized he could be motherless until you mentioned it in your previous post. Now I see it's the most logical thing to think. The same with Cinderella's prince. Though there, apart from her mother's absence, the paintings on the palace walls where only he and his father appear are a clue she could have died (and quite early). And what about Eric in The Little Mermaid? He doesn't seem to have parents, but if they were dead, wouldn't he be the king instead of a prince? I know there are also territories (like Monaco) that are ruled by a prince, but they're called principalities and there they mention it's a kingdom.

In the third Cinderella film, the prince's mother is confirmed to be dead. There's even a portrait of her with the King when he was younger and the King reveals to Anastasia that she reminds him of his late wife.

In the Broadway show for The Little Mermaid, Eric's father has just recently died and the laws of his kingdom entail that he must be married before he can become king. So I imagine the animated film's plotline would be something similar, since Eric needing to find a bride is also made a big deal. The sequel I think only ever refers to Eric as a prince and not a king, but I don't really take sequels into consideration.

D82 wrote:

Mooky wrote:In any case, complaining won't do much, but I guess it's nice to vent for a bit. We all know we're all going to pay and see this movie.

Yeah. The Princesses scene in the last trailer made me want to boycott the movie at first, but I know I will end up seeing it in the theater. It's useless to resist.

Yeah as much as I complain about the scene I know I'm going to end up seeing it anyway. And even if there are those who do boycott the movie, it'll be a very small minority (probably the smallest of any group that has talked about boycotting any of Disney's prior films like Frozen, Moana, etc.) that won't be enough to offset the people who suddenly have an interest in this film because of this one scene.

disneyprincess11 wrote:

Jay wrote:Cinderella and Aurora made fun of CP30? What did they say haha.

They actually tease him name, calling him K-2SO (I think??) and R-2T2 And after he leaves, Aurora says That never gets old and she fist pumps pixie dust with Cinderella. Again nothing too serious

I can't even imagine Cinderella and Aurora fist pumping, and I'm not sure where the pixie dust has come from since it wasn't ever in either of their films. Nevermind that Disney messed even that up since it was supposed to be fairy dust but somehow Tinker Bell got turned into a pixie instead.

JeanGreyForever wrote:In the third Cinderella film, the prince's mother is confirmed to be dead. There's even a portrait of her with the King when he was younger and the King reveals to Anastasia that she reminds him of his late wife.

In the Broadway show for The Little Mermaid, Eric's father has just recently died and the laws of his kingdom entail that he must be married before he can become king. So I imagine the animated film's plotline would be something similar, since Eric needing to find a bride is also made a big deal. The sequel I think only ever refers to Eric as a prince and not a king, but I don't really take sequels into consideration.

I had forgotten about those details from Cinderella III. I only watched that film once when it was released. I don't take sequels into consideration either, but the most logical thing is that the prince's mother is dead. That explanation for how Eric is called a prince in the Broadway show makes sense. It's probably the same in the film. Or that he can't rule until he's 21, for example? Grimsby looks like he could be a regent who's ruling the kingdom until Eric is married or becomes of age. Also, if his parents have died recently, that may explain why Carlotta says it's the first time she has seen him smile in weeks after the pipe incident.

D82 wrote:Also, if his parents have died recently, that may explain why Carlotta says it's the first time she has seen him smile in weeks after the pipe incident.

I always assumed he was sad about not having found the girl who rescued him. I've never really thought much about Eric's situation. I just assumed he couldn't call himself "king" without a "queen" or... something. I have no idea. Grimsby being in charge until he's of age or marries would make sense though.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I always assumed he was sad about not having found the girl who rescued him.

Well, it could be because of that. Or for other reason. But do you think it had been weeks since Ariel rescued him? It seems to me only days had passed, though I could be wrong.

D82 wrote: I had forgotten about those details from Cinderella III. I only watched that film once when it was released. I don't take sequels into consideration either, but the most logical thing is that the prince's mother is dead. That explanation for how Eric is called a prince in the Broadway show makes sense. It's probably the same in the film. Or that he can't rule until he's 21, for example? Grimsby looks like he could be a regent who's ruling the kingdom until Eric is married or becomes of age. Also, if his parents have died recently, that may explain why Carlotta says it's the first time she has seen him smile in weeks after the pipe incident.

In the Broadway show, Eric has just turned 18 so I imagine the Disney version of the character is the same age. Especially since he turns 16 in the fairy tale, while the Little Mermaid herself is 15 there, unlike the film where she's 16. 16/18 feels better than 16/21, at least for me. Also for that time period, 18 would be considered mature enough to be king, so I doubt the laws of his kingdom would wait until he turns 21. Frozen may have done that but Frozen was clearly more influenced by the perceptions of today, perhaps in part because past films like Snow White and The Little Mermaid have gotten flack for the young ages of their heroines.

D82 wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I always assumed he was sad about not having found the girl who rescued him.

Well, it could be because of that. Or for other reason. But do you think it had been weeks since Ariel rescued him? It seems to me only days had passed, though I could be wrong.

I can't imagine it having been weeks. Even days seems like a while. Sebastian is clearly tense about the entire situation and he wouldn't wait days, let alone weeks, to address Ariel on it. Plus she's on an emotional high from having just fallen in love and while that can technically last days, weeks, and even longer, it seems like she's just saved Eric. Not to mention Flounder finding Eric's statue which fits the same time period. I always took it as when Ariel's sisters are in the dressing room getting ready, it's the morning after the night of the shipwreck and thus just after Ariel is singing to Eric.

JeanGreyForever wrote:...I'm not sure where the pixie dust has come from since it wasn't ever in either of their films. Nevermind that Disney messed even that up since it was supposed to be fairy dust but somehow Tinker Bell got turned into a pixie instead.

i know! It should be fairy dust! But I think disneyprincess11 was just calling the fairy dust from their films pixie dust since the Disney company does that, too. I guess the dust from their magic dresses could rub onto their fists somehow...

And yes, Ariel just saved Eric the day before he smiled at her "pipe-playing."

JeanGreyForever wrote:In the Broadway show, Eric has just turned 18 so I imagine the Disney version of the character is the same age. Especially since he turns 16 in the fairy tale, while the Little Mermaid herself is 15 there, unlike the film where she's 16. 16/18 feels better than 16/21, at least for me. Also for that time period, 18 would be considered mature enough to be king, so I doubt the laws of his kingdom would wait until he turns 21. Frozen may have done that but Frozen was clearly more influenced by the perceptions of today, perhaps in part because past films like Snow White and The Little Mermaid have gotten flack for the young ages of their heroines.

Well, I didn't say he was 21 in the film, just that maybe he would still be a prince until he turned 21. But if 18 was the age when they were considered of age for that time period, he could be just about to turn 18 and that's why he was still a prince.

JeanGreyForever wrote:I can't imagine it having been weeks. Even days seems like a while. Sebastian is clearly tense about the entire situation and he wouldn't wait days, let alone weeks, to address Ariel on it. Plus she's on an emotional high from having just fallen in love and while that can technically last days, weeks, and even longer, it seems like she's just saved Eric. Not to mention Flounder finding Eric's statue which fits the same time period. I always took it as when Ariel's sisters are in the dressing room getting ready, it's the morning after the night of the shipwreck and thus just after Ariel is singing to Eric.

You're right that many things seem to indicate it's just the morning after Ariel saved Eric, but both Ariel's sisters and Triton say she has been acting strangely lately and that makes me think more than one day has passed. Though, I don't know, maybe they are referring to just the latest hours.

There are apparently NO bad guys in Wreck-It Ralph 2, but I'll believe it when I see it. There has to be a bad guy , come on. The possibilities are endless with it. And they did a brilliant job with King Candy/Turbo. Of all times to have a bad guy, it would make sense for this movie to have one.

And isn't it out of character for Vanellope to give up her game so quickly and let her subjects suffer for her to be free?

Though the Wreck-It Ralph sequel's first full trailer featured several iconic video game villain cameos (and technically, Ralph himself is a video game baddie), there reportedly won't be any King Candy/Turbo-esque characters in Wreck-It Ralph 2.

What does the lack of a primary villain for Ralph, Vanellope, and Fix-it Felix to overcome this time around mean for the sequel? The film's producer, Clark Spencer, was present in London yesterday to field this question and more from attending journalists.

Spencer goes into further detail in the video below, where he reveals that Ralph and Vanellope's journey into the internet creates friction between the two as Vanellope falls in love with the place while Ralph wants to return to his arcade cabinet as quickly as possible.

"Really, the idea of the story is- two characters, who go from a small town, the arcade in this case, to the large city [the internet]. And one falls in love with it and the other just wants to get back home. And so the 'baddie' in the film, if you will, becomes Ralph battling the concept that he might actually have to let Vanellope lead her own life. It really is a very emotional story, for parents, I think [it resonates with] that moment in time where you have to say goodbye to your children as they go off to college. Or for kids, it's that moment in time where two best friends are going to separate."

https://toonado.com/movies/wreck-it-ral ... onist-a255

Ugh. That's such a superficial plot line with a clichéd, manufactured conflict. Boring. Not to mention that Vanellope's willingness to abandon her home and her people is completely out of character.

Honestly, the more I learn about this movie the more I resent it on a purely ideological level. From the sheer consumerism and commercialism the movie advocates and supports with blatant product placement, to the advertising of the entire gamut of Disney's franchises and their unapologetic cross-promotion, to the replacement of the video game conceit and the mythology the original film built, to the paper-thin plot, to the bastardization of the Disney princesses and their legacy, there's nothing about this movie that justifies its existence beyond being a cynical cash-grab. At least The Emoji Movie was honest about its intentions while Disney and the movie's filmmakers are pretending they're so much better and above all that and have such an obnoxiously sanctimonious attitude about it.

Sotiris wrote:Ugh. That's such a superficial plot line with a clichéd, manufactured conflict. Boring. Not to mention that Vanellope's willingness to abandon her home and her people is completely out of character.

I wouldn’t call the sequel as cash grab since the first movie wasn’t that successful and virtually everybody has forgotten about the film. When I ask guests about it during my DCP, only four out of hundreds I talk to knew about the first one. Frozen 2 and obviously TS 4 on the other hand...

I love that the movie is about the relationship between these two. I love their friendship so so much. What I'm worried now is Vanellope because I love her so much. I can believe her abandoning her home. I am fine with that. What I can't believe is that they would make Vanellope willfully let her subjects suffer for her to be free. She would actually be almost as bad as Turbo (unless that's the point???) by making her subjects homeless. Heck, even Turbo DIDN’T want the characters to be homeless. On the other hand, if she decides to fix the game for her people like a good president/princess and then leave everyone, then okay, I'm cool with that. I just don't want them to "wreck" Vanellope's character and make her unlikeable. And where the heck is Calhoun and Felix?! Their plot has to be a pregnancy one if there's no word about them

I know I gush about this movie and I trust Rich, Phil, and Clark, but I am also nervous about this movie because I love the first one so much. It's like waiting for your first baby. Every time I get a update for WiR 2, I get excited and then scared. Eh, at least I get the princesses and more of the original characters if this movie sucks.